Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Greg Goodwiller

Members
  • Content Count

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Greg Goodwiller

  • Rank
    Professional Registered Parliamentarian
  • Birthday 10/29/1960

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Oxford, MS

Recent Profile Visitors

1,281 profile views
  1. The point is that the RONR standard for most motions is a majority of those "present and voting;" therefore, if anyone chooses not to vote, their abstention from voting doesn't affect the outcome..
  2. In addition to what my colleague has said, I think a resolution composed and signed by multiple members can be submitted, the adoption of which is then moved by one member and seconded by another.
  3. I must disagree with my colleague about email meetings. I personally think they should only be used for unanimous consent motions - authorized in a clearly defined article in the bylaws. In reality, many states require it for non-profit corporations. I work quite a bit with electronic meetings, including the development of rules for such meetings, and I also recommend that the rules adopted for electronic meetings cover what to do with the technology fails to facilitate the meeting whatever the reason. That's why special rules of order exist in the first place.
  4. Agreeing with "Guest Who's . . .", With that motion defeated, a different motion would then be in order. It could be "that the application be accepted," but under the circumstances, it would probably be more helpful to move that it be either postponed indefinitely (which kills it, if adopted) or that it be referred (which allows the committee to which it is referred to figure out how to bring back a motion that a majority will support).
  5. Here is the relevant passage from RONR: "Action on the Financial Report. No action of acceptance by the assembly is required—or proper—on a financial report of the treasurer unless it is of sufficient importance, as an annual report, to be referred to auditors. In the latter case it is the auditors' report which the assembly accepts." (RONR pg. 479, ll. 5-9). The point is that "accepting" an unaudited financial report can have the effect of accepting something as valid that an expert has not so verified. We aren't attorneys, here, but our attorneys tell us that is a bad thing with respect to liability. After hearing or reviewing financial reports, I say something like, "are there any questions? Hearing none, thank you, madam treasurer, the report is filed for audit."
  6. If a member believes that a motion is out of order but the presiding officer does not rule it out of order, the member can immediately raise a point of order, and state his or her reasons. If the presiding officer rules the point "not well taken" and continues to move forward with the motion, the member can immediately appeal from the ruling of the chair, in which case the full assembly would decide the question, which would be "shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?" An appeal, unlike the underlying Point of Order, requires a second, is debatable (although with special rules), and requires a majority vote in the negative to overturn the chair's ruling. Additional rules and forms for these two motions are covered in RONR beginning on page 247.
  7. "Let's eat Grandma!" "Let's eat, Grandma!" Yes, punctuation matters.
  8. In that case, no. "Past President" is only an office if it is so designated in your bylaws.
  9. I just communicated with my colleague in Holston who has assured me that it has now been removed.
  10. I'm not sure what you think was potentially not "legitimate." There are some technical issues. But since the matter, whatever it was, was adopted by vote of the committee - and no one appears to have raised any points of order or contested the vote - then it stands as an action of the committee.
  11. That would be a matter of what your own rules dictate. Nothing in Robert's Rules either requires or prohibits the requirement of completing an application for an office.
  12. Sorry, but no. It is only available in its various printed versions, or electronically on a CD. The homepage of this site will guide you to where you can purchase the latter, if you are interested, or it is also available on the website of the National Association of Parliamentarians (www.parliamentarians.org).
  13. I think the answer to this question lies in the governing document that creates this committee which is composed of both voting and non-voting "members." If the organization's rule is that the individual in question is in fact a member with all rights except the right to vote, then I stand by my answer, which is that RONR says members have the right to be present at all meetings.
  14. "A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings. Some organized societies define additional classes of "membership" that do not entail all of these rights. Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as "voting members" when it is necessary to make a distinction" RONR pg. 10, ll. 1-14.
  15. I think you will find that members of this forum prefer to stick with what RONR says, which in this case is that it is one of the formalities that is not necessary in a smaller group in order to accomplish its business. It is certainly true that the smaller an assembly, the greater each member's percentage of the total membership. But the reason the rules are relaxed is so that process doesn't hinder progress.
×
×
  • Create New...